Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) THE appropriate Government by Notification dated 26.12.1988 referred an Industrial Disputes for its adjudication to Labour Court, Udaipur in the terms that "Whether the non -conferment of semi -permanent status and non -payment of the relevant pay to the workman Lalu Ram S/o Deeta Ji Patel, cattle guard (represented by Secretary, Indian Forest Department Employees Union, Udaipur) by Deputy Conservator of Forest, Udaipur is just and valid ? If not, then for what relief, the workman is entitled -
(2.) SUBSEQUENT thereto, the workman was retrenched from service and that issue too was adjudicated by the Labour Court as per provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947' hereinafter). Learned Labour Court answered the reference vide award dated 12.10.2000 by declaring retrenchment of the workman bad and also declaring him entitled for conferment of semi -permanent status, however, while considering the relief pertaining to illegal retrenchment of the workman, a lump -sum compensation in tune of Rs. 1,70,000/ - was given instead of reinstatement in service. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. It is worthwhile to note here that the workman too preferred a petition for writ before this Court challenging the award to the extent of denial of reinstatement in service, and that petition for writ (SBCWP No. 1733/2001) came to be rejected on 7.5.2001.
(3.) WHILE pressing the instant petition for writ, the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner -employer is that the Respondent -workman as a matter of fact, abandoned the service and therefore, the Labour Court erroneously considered case of the Petitioners under Chapter V. of the Act of 1947. The another argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the date of termination of the workman as determined by the Labour Court is 31.3.1987 and on that day no dispute was pending, therefore, the powers under Section 33 of the Act of 1947 could have not been invoked.;